Biology has changing temperament as very difficult RP. I've never thought much of shifting heavy stones about for science or religion. The point of anthropology for me is to work out just how stone age we remain. Science wins hands down for me against religion of any kind, but only up to a point. There's a lot of stuff that isn't science that has fairytales - sort of basic fictions aimed more at ways if living rather than the empirical adequacy of science. Freud's 'depressive' rather than 'paranoid-schizoid' position to view the world is one example - and rather like RP's.
The problem that arises for me in most religion is lack of critical fellowship and the presence of gooey nodding donkey agreement as proof. I regularly meet people who have read even less of the Bible than me saying it is wonderful. I am not sure the real fairytales of religion are made clear at all in the way they are examined in science. On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 6:33:31 PM UTC, facilitator wrote: > > Good point RP. So we'll just leave it at that, criticism. > > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
